The fuck would have been in the part of the email that they didn't quote. The part in the summary is from further down. Maybe you could try being informed before you have a tizzy fit about how mature we all are.

Seriously, self-signed certificates can only be verified by comparing them against a stored public key for being exactly equal.

So explain this.

(Hint: who signed that certificate?)

Your client must have no information about your server's self-signed certificate,

Of course. My client will know nothing about the server's certificate, it'll know about my CA.

and must accept all self-signed certificates as equally valid.

Um, did you just go full-retard? I'm pretty sure you're not supposed to do that. This statement is like someone saying they've invented a truly bulletproof vest and they're willing to test it with any gun and you respond by saying, "Oh, ok. But first you have to take off the vest."

You've now posted several times that self signed certs are useless and provide no security, in fact they lower security (from what baseline I must ask?)

So I would make a little bet with you. I will put up $100,000, my testicles in a jar with a small plaque saying "These balls once belonged to a fool." You will put up $10,000 plus any required travel expenses to carry out the wager. The terms of the wager are that I will provide a client and a server system. The server will have a self signed certificate. You will provide the networking equipment of your choice as well as any device(s) you so desire to place in between my client and server. I will make an SSL connection from my client to my server. Your job is to MITM the connection without my being able to detect said MITMing. Note that I am allowing you to build the entire network connecting my two devices, only requirement being that it be standard ethernet. Additionally you do not get to tamper with my equipment, this is about the security of self signed certificates, not whether you can literally or metaphorically crowbar open my systems and install a keylogger to capture the passphrase of my private SSL keys.

How about it? You game? I can always use an extra $10,000.

You said you were re-ripping, right? So why didn't your submit your corrected title and track information back to the databases? Seems like if you'd been a team player everything would be there ready for you to use.

Second, why don't you just write a script that grabs the track and duration and other identifying information from a newly inserted CD and then use that to locate the same piece of media from your previous rip and just move the meta-data from there?

Third, if you actually were in a hurry you'd be using every optical drive you could lay your hands on and be ripping four or five discs at a time.

You can buy motherboards that support i7 and DDR2 memory chips.

No you can't. The i7 has an integrated memory controller and it's DDR3.

It does if you'd bother to look at the fingerprint and verify it's the same as last time. Which the browsers should do, but they don't because it cuts into their CA root key inclusion fees.

The number of posts calling the president racists terms probably is 100 times more than any of those other folks.

Citation or retraction please.

A google search turned up this quote:

This reporter searched Twitter with several specialized Twitter search engines using the keywords “Romney,” “Obama,” “kill,” “shoot,” “riot” and other terms to denote violence, and found scores of original Tweets and re-Tweets advocating violent behavior against both the President and Romney. Many more of the Tweets, though, were, in fact, directed against Romney.

And these pages -- don't even bother reading the articles just scroll down through the tweets:

http://twitchy.com/2012/10/14/death-threats-against-mitt-romney-proliferate/
http://www.prisonplanet.com/obama-supporters-continue-threats-to-riot-assassinate-romney.html
http://www.infowars.com/threats-to-assassinate-romney-explode-after-debate/

While these are specifically about threats against Romney, it certainly doesn't suggest a dearth of such threats. Hell searching for "twitter threats obama" turns up page after page of threats against Romney with the occasional link to something against Obama.

The controversy around Obama's church are related to a specific church in a specific city and a specific pastor. If you are claiming participation in that specific church and pastor, then I call bullshit on your statement. Jeremiah Wright has a long and documented history. You can go on youtube and hear him spout antisemitic remarks and other irrationalities.

Say you have a collection of statements:

Barack Obama is a fucking nigger!
Mia Love is a fucking nigger!
I'm glad that cracker Romney didn't get elected.
Was offline for a few and now I'm back, glad to see my president is still black.

If the only one you call out is "Barack Obama is a fucking nigger!" then you have an agenda of criticizing your political opponents, not of speaking against racism. The fact that the statement is racist doesn't change that.

You apparently missed the bit where I said:

...it's on the government to make sure their contracts properly spell out their requirements.

If an agency is going to use a service provider of any kind and they have special requirements, those requirements need to be put in the RFP and the government employees need to make sure that the contracts they are accepting actually meet those requirements. There's no constitutional basis for the government to say that because they are using "lots" of private providers, those providers are now de facto government agencies in their own right and under the control of government workers and bureaucrats. Government employees and politicians don't get to do a shitty job and fix it by seizing private property.

One's free speech rights do not entitle one to a printing press, or blog platform. If I was running a blog host I have every right in the world to impose any conditions I so desire upon the use of that host. If you want to exercise your rights to the maximum it is upon you to buy your own equipment with which to broadcast your speech.

While the internet had its roots in DARPA, the reality is that the "public infrastructure" is privately owned. Critical government systems should not be on it. Critical privately owned and operated services (power, telecom, etc.) should be hardened to the extent that the provider desires or the contracts that they signed with various municipalities require.

I've worked contract gigs with the armed services and I have a lot of respect for the technical skills they have, but that's irrelevant. Companies and businesses should be able to make their own decisions and benefit from their good decision making or suffer from their poor decision making. Anywhere that government intersects with private industry, it's on the government to make sure their contracts properly spell out their requirements. End of story.

And chemical weapons and actually have a habit of sending their young men to military service.